It isn't. If you encrypt something with most algorithms, there is going to be one key that turns it back into something intelligible and all the others produce garbage. That isn't the case with xor. Different "keys" will produce different intelligible decryptions.
> In court the judge would attempt to judge the intent of each person involved and rule based on that. You seem to think this is a problem, and indeed it is hard. That why the law uses judges rather than attempting to legislate every possible example.
The hardness is the problem. Suppose somebody sends you a DMCA takedown for what appears to be random numbers, arguing that if you xor it with some specific other random numbers you get infringing content. But that proves nothing because it's true for everything, so what are you supposed to do? What is the judge supposed to do?
> No. This is the key thing you are missing. Elsewhere on this thread someone put it like this: "I would add the concept that the law, unlike software, is capable of openly defying logic. Courts are permitted to dismiss case law and rule in a completely new and unforeseen direction."
How is that supposed to solve anything? The problem isn't that the court is going to come across "this statement is false" and have a meltdown, the problem is that we can't predict what the court is actually going to do so we don't know how to behave if we want to stay within the law.
And furthermore that there isn't anything good for the court to do. Of course the court is not required to do something good, but how is it OK when they do something bad?
In court the judge would attempt to judge the intent of each person involved and rule based on that. You seem to think this is a problem, and indeed it is hard. That why the law uses judges rather than attempting to legislate every possible example.
But the better point is that people have become quick to dismiss the math, as if facts and logic and reality are irrelevant to the law. The law has to live inside the universe. It has to do something when the problems the math proves can happen actually do.
No. This is the key thing you are missing. Elsewhere on this thread someone put it like this: "I would add the concept that the law, unlike software, is capable of openly defying logic. Courts are permitted to dismiss case law and rule in a completely new and unforeseen direction."
The Law is lazily evaluated, in a specific court, in the context of a specific case. It does not follow that the logic in one case applies in another - sometimes it might, sometimes it might not, and things like the intent of the people involved matter.